Hazel Lane residents’ proposal rejected

City instead supports resolution to take over road leading to Hope

Aldermen approved a resolution Tuesday that urges Woodside
Township to transfer ownership of Hazel Lane to the city of Springfield, despite
a last-minute attempt by the road’s residents to block the measure.

Woodside Township and Hazel Lane residents have for years
battled the Hope Institute for Children and Families — a nonprofit residential
and educational facility for children with developmental disabilities — over
the narrow, residential road, which served as the facility’s main entrance
until a wider access road was built on East Hazel Dell Lane in 2004 [see “Road
to court,” June 9, 2005].

Woodside and Hope signed a settlement agreement in 2006 that
called on the institute to direct employees and vendors to its new entrance and
to only use Hazel Lane during emergencies, but Hope officials have since
alleged that the township breached the agreement by blocking the secondary
entrance and by posting signs that dissuade through-traffic to the institute.

Aldermen proposed the recent resolution after Hope announced
that it would not invest $6 million in on-site campus renovations unless these
concerns were addressed. Hazel Lane residents, expressing fears that street
traffic would increase under the new plan, submitted their own counter-proposal
at Tuesday’s city council meeting.

John Myers, a Springfield attorney representing the Hazel
Lane residents, told aldermen that the residents opposed the resolution,
because they want to keep both their road and their residences in Woodside
Township.

“The problem the neighbors have is that they’re not in the
city of Springfield, so if something goes wrong with the road, they don’t have
an alderman to call,” Myers said. “The alternative is to annex in, but they
don’t want to do that either because they have their semi-rural lifestyle and
don’t want the increased property taxes.”

The residents suggested instead that Woodside Township and
the city of Springfield enter into an intergovernmental agreement, in which
Woodside would continue to own and maintain Hazel Lane. However, the city of
Springfield would be permitted to step in and clear the road of snow or other
obstacles if needed.

Also, Woodside would be asked to remove the gate from the
end of the lane and post a new sign that reads: “Hazel Lane is to be used for
emergency access only to Hope Institute. Vendor and employee access is
prohibited.”

While the Woodside Township board and its road commissioner
Don Duffy approved the agreement, some aldermen voiced concern that it would
keep the public off a taxpayer-funded road.

“I’m all for compromise and agreement, but I do agree that
it continues to open the door to potentially discriminate against who can drive
on a public road,” said Ward 7 Ald. Debbie Cimarossa. “That is the heart of the
whole matter. It is a public road…and I think it puts the city in a very
awkward position.”

Ward 1 Ald. Frank Edwards, who represents the area around
the Hope Institute, also said he favored the city’s resolution over the
residents’ proposal.

“It’s just a general push to keep moving forward and to come
to some kind of resolve,” Edwards said.

Aldermen voted unanimously to accept the city’s resolution,
which states that if Woodside Township doesn’t transfer ownership of Hazel Lane
within 90 days, the city will then forcibly annex the road and its residences.

Ron Ettinger, a resident of Hazel Lane, told Illinois Times
that that the residents are meeting Friday night to discuss their next move,
which could include redrafting their proposal and resubmitting it to city
aldermen.

Comments

Old Comments

The Hazel Lane residents claim that if they do not live in the City, they will not know who to call if there is a problem with plowing. That argument lacks credibility. Two residents of Hazel Lane, including their spokesperson Chris Richmond, have already been annexed into the City. Additionally, I believe that Richmond worked for Alderman Frank Edwards when the Alderman was Fire Chief! The Hazel Lane residents have had no problem contacting aldermen so far, so I don't understand what the problem is!